Stuff that 'boggles' your mind.
- Thread starter Winky_The_Winking_Turtle
- Start date
Soldato
It matters because it gives us the perspective to see that what we have here on our little planet, wonderful though it may be, is not all there is. And it matters because space programmes in the past have invariably improved the lives of people here on Earth. From the profound stuff like satellite communications which allow you to send the word "lol" to the other side of the world in a matter of milliseconds, to the trivial stuff like memory-foam mattresses. It's not just an ivory-tower academic thing to be interested in the universe, it's an economic thing whereby going into space creates wealth.
First of all you've picked me up wrong. I'm saying that it does matter, and that it doesn't. You don't need to defend space exploration from me.
As to what you've said.. it's sort of true. Lefty scientists are always on about how space research a la NASA contribute to the economy and they do. However it's not because it's space, it's because it's a great big pile of money being spent on achieving things we couldn't do before. That isn't in itself a bad thing either.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Plus it puts further dents in the arguments of crazy people that think the Universe was made in 6 days by a magic man in the Sky.
Soldato
I was being quite careful to avoid mentioning religion, because I know how people can be rather touchy about that subject. But yes, that's certainly a big part of it.
Well, denting religion isn't a reason to do it - however advancing science (even if it's blue sky stuff) is worth it and you can't avoid that organised religion has been in full retreat from science since the printing press.
The fact that we're giving billions of £'s in 'aid' to a country that has plans for it's own space program, is developing nuclear missiles (if it doesn't have them already) and has one of the largest armies in Asia (China excluded!). The mind truly does boggle.
Associate
Not strictly true, when we were at the animal park my bf got hit in the face by a fruit bat.
I agree with your other point though, I think it's so narrow minded that we see ourselves as superior when animals have are so amazingly adapted to what they do.
Light/colour boggles my mind. I never done any Physics at school and no matter how many times I've had it explained to me I just can't get my head around how it works!
Soldato
Well yes and no. My view is that religion is an inherently harmful thing in the context of the modern world, and being able to understand the universe as it really is (as opposed to how you would like it to be), gives one the opportunity to break free of it.
It's organised religion that's harmful - or at least it always has been in the past. I don't believe we should be attacking it though.
It's not the liberal thing to do, and aside from that it wouldn't work. We just need to make sure it has no special protection, and just get on with things - our 'extelligence' will evolve beyond it.
Soldato
You'll note I said nothing about directly attacking organised religion, simply offering an unbiased alternative backed by empirical evidence. The trouble is, our culture is such that even doing as little as that is construed as an attack against religion. And why is that? Is organised religion so flimsy that its adherents cannot tolerate any suggestion that contradicts their doctrine? Religion has been the status quo for so long, that simple passive things like that are automatically regarded as belligerent and obnoxious. Even secular folk get trapped by that kind of thinking because it is considered so normal.
Well, sorry - I thought you were implying it.
In any case I agree with you here, they're attacking religion usually means that the special status, either in law or in practice is being challenged. Or worse still that people unrelated to the religion are being dictated to by clerics who demand they don't blaspheme.
Soldato
That's about right. Religion has held a privileged position for so long, that this is the situation we're in. It's normal to consider a small child a "muslim child" or a "catholic child", but if someone started labeling their kid a "marxist child" or a "keynesian child", we'd think them a bit odd. Somehow it's natural to expect a child to have a position on the creation of the universe, but not on economics. (yes, that's a Dawkins argument, but I think it's a good one)
Oh for the love of Flying Spaghetti Monster, I promised myself I would avoid talking about religion, and here I am ranting about it regardless.
Soldato
I'm pretty sure you'd run out of paper atoms first.
I'm a mathematician, so I'm long past being impressed by the exponential function.
